Maybe I'm old fashioned, but why don't some people admit that we also just want 'things' because of the look and feel? Why are some photographers so nuts and bolts when it comes to cameras? I learned long ago that when I buy or use a new camera or lens that I lusted after, it motivates me and I go out and get better shots. Sounds silly but we are very psychological creatures, especially us creatives. There are intangibles beyond specs that can make one camera be much more productive with a photographer than another.

There is also my love for a full size 35mm sensor - I don't care how good the others are - but when I try and travel with only a 4/3rds or APS camera, I just don't like the feel of the camera or of the images. It could be psychological but it feels real to me. I felt the same why back in the film days when I used Hasselblads, I tried moving to the then new 645 cameras but it just didn't feel the same.

I think the Leica M is a unique camera whose specs just don't tell the whole story. What's most important is the images we produce, not the camera that captures them. I think most of us would agree that any of the new digital cameras we speak of here will produce superb images. So for me, it comes down to what camera or lens makes me the most inspired to work that keep me shooting.

Price is irrelevant, if you can afford the M system, then it doesn't have any bearing on choosing it. Look at the way we buy cars. Not only on specs but for look and feel. All cars can take us to the grocery store or across the county but some of us buy Ford Escapes and others buy Range Rovers.

The plots below are based on test images with the Leica M9 and Olympus EM5 by Imaging Resource. The data shown is MTF at a pretty central point. If you check MTF at 60 lp/mm it is around 30% at for the Leica M9 and about 54% for the Olympus.

The Leica is slightly sharper as it has twice the linear image size (and four times the area), add to that the Leica has no OLP filter. But if you put the Leica lens on the EM5 it won't be as sharp as the Olympus lens.

Both Olympus and Panasonic makes great consumer grade lenses, but I kind of doubt the "twice as sharp". Can you please point us to a test showing a Oly or Pana lens that has twice the resolution figures for same aperture of a given Leica lens with same focal length.

Maybe lusting is the wrong word. I've passed it up many times over the recent years, finding it hard to justify. But the new 240 seems to be a big step forward for the series. I do wish I had an M system as my travel camera. Right now I'm playing with other alternatives, but if price was no object, I see no real competition for the Leica M for my travel needs.

The Leica M that would really get me on-board would ditch the RF mechanism for a built-in hi-res fast-refresh EVF (geez, I feel like Hyphen Boy here...) with the focus point moveable around the entire frame. Then add exposure comp. & ISO dials to the top plate--lotsa room on the left side--et voila! They could even emulate RF focusing using dual-purpose photosites, similar to what Fuji has done with the X100s. But proper focus would be optically determined...say bye bye to the majority of mechanics-induced accuracy issues.

Telecaster's vision for improving the Leica M with 21st century viewfinder, controls, etc. makes some sense to me, but it leaves the lenses as the only place were Leica would really contribute. So it sounds a lot like hoping for someone like Sony to make a 35mm format body that can accept M mount lenses, or for Leica to follow Zeiss into making (or at least designing) lenses for other brands of camera body, maybe as high end manual focus alternatives to the manufacturers' own AF lenses.

The Leica M that would really get me on-board would ditch the RF mechanism for a built-in hi-res fast-refresh EVF (geez, I feel like Hyphen Boy here...) with the focus point moveable around the entire frame. Then add exposure comp. & ISO dials to the top plate--lotsa room on the left side--et voila! They could even emulate RF focusing using dual-purpose photosites, similar to what Fuji has done with the X100s. But proper focus would be optically determined...say bye bye to the majority of mechanics-induced accuracy issues.

-Dave-

This may be the next gen Fuji or RX2. In my very humble opinion, if you want that feature set you are better served by other (much cheaper) cameras. This is not a knock, just an observation. To me the M9 using the RF gets me where I want to be. I don't have many mechanical focus errors, aside from the old focus recompose problems inherint in a single RF focus patch.

The M240 brings some flexibility to the M. The problem with teh M has always been lack of TTL, making it inflexible. My solution was to only use the M for wide portraits and street/travel. The M 240 lets you use it for macro, TTL portraits, etc. If that is how you plan on using the M240 AFuji or Sont might serve you better.

I actually did get a Fuji X-E1 for RF lens digi use. It's not an ideal solution but it works well. Cost itself wasn't an issue with the M240...it was the meh-ness of the camera in relation to the cost that did it in for me. Note that I speak only for myself...the M clearly fits the bill for other folks.

As for Leica M cameras in general, for now I'll stick with my old M2 and newer M6 TTL. Gotta use up all my film somehow! But if Leica does make a camera like the one I describe a few posts above in this thread, or has someone else make it for them, I'll be all over it.

I actually did get a Fuji X-E1 for RF lens digi use. It's not an ideal solution but it works well. Cost itself wasn't an issue with the M240...it was the meh-ness of the camera in relation to the cost that did it in for me. Note that I speak only for myself...the M clearly fits the bill for other folks.

As for Leica M cameras in general, for now I'll stick with my old M2 and newer M6 TTL. Gotta use up all my film somehow! But if Leica does make a camera like the one I describe a few posts above in this thread, or has someone else make it for them, I'll be all over it.

-Dave-

I use my M9s just as I do my M6ttl. My lust for an M240 is mainly about ISO, as I like the look of the M9 files. But in reality, I can hand hold down to 1/8th and shoot wide open, so ISO 1600 on the M9 (using C1 7.2) is usable, at least for editorial and personal use.

I use my M9s just as I do my M6ttl. My lust for an M240 is mainly about ISO, as I like the look of the M9 files. But in reality, I can hand hold down to 1/8th and shoot wide open, so ISO 1600 on the M9 (using C1 7.2) is usable, at least for editorial and personal use.

I'm waiting patiently for the XPro2!

I understand all that.

I never bought an M9 because I use my M8 so infrequently. Actually I would use the M8 a lot if the thing would tether, (I know it's not meant for that but the M8 with a profoto standard head makes one beautiful image, same with harsh daylight and I'm sure the M9 would be equal or more.

The Fuji, I like, but . . . I really need more options than the lenses that are offered, though I'll look at the next version.

What I'd really love, is a OMD with a better rear lcd, a good 18 to 20 mpx that are clean to 1600 and well . . . that's about it. I'd even take a Panasonic 4/3's that did it because I own both and the Panasonic is a hell of a camera, actually better overall than the OMD, but the OMD is just really nice to use and feels so right.

I personally really have begun to like EVFs. I never thought I'd say that but the GH3 set on manual is just wysiwyg and the OMD is as fast as any optical finder. Maybe it has to recycle, but optical finders also have that fraction of a second black out period, so it's a wash.

Which comes back to the new Leica. As much as I'd like to like it, it's expensive, with the rangefinder somewhat limited on what lenses you can use and focus (unless your locked down and using the lcd) and well it's expensive.

I'm not against spending money on cameras I can earn with, or even like, but traditional or not, there are a lot of very interesting options out there in the hand held carrying class and I was really surprised with how far the smaller cameras have gone.

Maybe we're talking about different markets, but when you add in the mirrorless cameras that have full autofocus points on every bit of the frame, shoot excellent movie files and cost 1/2 of a leica lens, then the decisions become more difficult.